What the documents look like
Daily operations for a Tmall flagship store center on brand authorization, flagship-store identity, and the Tmall points compensation rules. The data sources named in the brief are the Tmall merchant backend, the Tmall rules center, ERP order tables, and customer-service chat records. For this page's task, the relevant documents are the product publishing page, the brand authorization letter, the shipping-commitment record, and the after-sales work order. These documents update daily or per order. That update frequency describes the records; it does not change how a workflow node behaves.
The task on this page is drafting product and marketing copy. The core question is whether a proposed sentence is supported by the source text of the brand authorization letter, the product publishing page, or another named document. Workflow routing carries the material text and the proposed sentence into a judgment step, and uses the user feedback from an interaction node to decide the following branch.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and the workflow continues after the user completes the interaction. Required fields are collected on submission and passed to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node. After the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly. The interaction state is the node's own behavior; no separate global state-recording switch is documented.
The following is a hypothetical paper exercise sample, not a real record. Source text one: "This store holds authorization from the brand owner; the authorized product scope is the skincare category; the authorization is valid until December 31, 2026." Source text two: "The product publishing page states: this item is a moisturizing serum, net content 30 milliliters, suitable skin type is dry skin." Proposed sentence to be judged: "This store holds official authorization across all categories, all products are supplied directly by the brand, and the item suits any skin type."
The subject in this sample is a Tmall flagship store. The object is the skincare-category authorization and the moisturizing serum item. The status is an authorization valid until December 31, 2026, with an effective scope of the skincare category. The proposed sentence widens the authorization scope to all categories, widens the suitable skin type to any skin type, and uses a direct-supply wording that the source text does not state. The material needed for the judgment must sit in a target retrieval scope the operator is authorized to access, or in an explicit manual input. When it is missing, the gap is recorded.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Can be added repeatedly; triggering enters the interaction state; required fields are collected and passed to later nodes | Collects the proposed sentence and the source text as judgment input |
| User Selection node | After the user chooses, the "yes" branch executes; verify each branch connection one by one | Used for the manual choice on whether the authorization scope matches |
| Interaction-state check | State recording is the interaction node's own behavior; no global state-recording switch is claimed | Checks whether the workflow continues downward after submission |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information explicitly to the following retrieval, judgment, or interface node; compare output against input item by item | Checks whether the proposed sentence and source text both reach the judgment node |
| External action boundary | Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later flow | This page performs no delisting or compensation action |
The hypothetical starting point for this exercise is to send the source text and the proposed sentence into the judgment node together. This starting point is chosen because the judgment needs to see both sides of the text at once; the comparison method is a field-by-field check of subject, object, status, and effective scope. This starting point is a paper-exercise setting, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating the proposed sentence "official authorization across all categories" as consistent with the source text "the authorized product scope is the skincare category." The input is the two source sentences; the compared field is authorization scope; the observable result is that the scope wording differs, so the sentence is unsupported.
- Treating "supplied directly by the brand" as text already stated in the material. The input is the proposed sentence and the two source texts; the compared field is supply method; the observable result is that the wording does not appear in the source text, so an evidence gap is recorded.
- Treating the User Selection node's "yes" branch as an automatic judgment. The input is the interaction node's branch connection; the compared objects are the manual choice result and the following node's input; the observable result is that branch execution depends on the user's choice, not on a similarity score.
How to verify the setup
- Enter source text one, source text two, and the proposed sentence from the hypothetical sample above, and compare the authorization-scope field. If the judgment node outputs "unsupported" and keeps the source-text citation, the condition is met. The expectation is that the scope difference is identified; no live test is claimed.
- Enter "suits any skin type" from the proposed sentence and compare it against the suitable-skin-type field in source text two. If the output states that the material records only dry skin, the condition is met. Missing evidence stays missing.
- Enter the paper input [] and compare whether the downstream node is designed to accept an empty input. If the downstream node does not treat the empty result as authorized or approved, the condition is met. The retrieval check records only what is observed; it does not guarantee a first hit or full recall.
Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together. Verify the identifier first and exclude those that do not match; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. Retrieval does not perform permission or entity isolation, and a relevance score does not constitute an authorization judgment.